Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Opens Code Just Slightly More
ctar writes "This story on Bloomberg.com details Microsoft's new program to open the source to parts of Windows in order to compete with Linux, especially in the government sector. Microsoft's spokesman is making these announcements directly: They say governments involved will be invited to Redmond to meet w/ security engineers, and view testing procedures. Countries will also be able to incorporate their own encryption schemes 'based on Microsoft's software'."
yeah, I read about that. That's an interesting point you make; is this really Microsoft trying to share source code for development purposes or are they just trying to make themselves look a little softer? I think you could argue both, but I think clearly they won't give up anything that holds a competitive advantage for them -- that would just be silly. They're still a company, so they'll never be as open as the wonderful opensource community.
;-)
Oh, by the way, those cursors do rock!
In this case, the criminals are all the world governments, and all the hackers and spies that can get a hold of the source code. So now the U.S. government will be able to crack into Chinese government computers, and the Chinese will be able to crack into U.S. government computers, and hackers will be able to crack into everyone's computers. Meanwhile, little ol' you and me will just have to leave our MS-Windows boxes wide open for all the bad people to crack.
--sexy gal
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Im sure someone will get some use out of this, but source code wont do much good unless you can make modification. I mean maybe you can get a better grasp on how some of their stuff works, but the real advantage to open source is that anyone can change it and add to it.
Not like MS letting the govornment view some of the source is benificial to them anyhow. You forgot to account for the fact that MS will more than likely make them sign a NDA. and all the souce code is propitary anyhow. No body else may use it in any form without explicit premission from MS. If this were the not case, WINE would be able to run every Windows program seamlessly, but as of now, it needs configuing for every program you wish to run on it. Not really news, more like this:
You: "My neighbor just got a new car."
Your friend: "does he let you drive it?"
You: No, but atleast I get to look at it."
Your friend: "who cares then?"
You: "Good point."
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
i fail to see how microsoft's pseudo-open source campaigns compete with the real openness of linux. what microsoft is doing is almost like taking a prisoner out of prison, chaining him to the ground outside, and telling him he's free.
its been said a million times, but maybe microsoft should concentrate on improving their software, since that's the only way they can actually compete with linux.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
"Ten countries or agencies including Russia and NATO have already signed agreements..." (emphasis mine)
Signed agreements? Is this really open? I don't remember signing anything before being able to look at RedHat source...
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
Linux would be some grad student's pet project were it not for the fact that Linus opened the code for discussion, so to speak. Many of the early ideas for the Linux kernel were inspired by the Minux operating system, published in book form by Andrew S. Tanenbaum. The source code was there for Minux, published and documented. I have a copy myself from my days as a computer engineering student.
Why don't we use the Minux kernel? Well for starters, Tanenbaum (at least at the time) was a bit of a minimalist. His goal was to create a toy operating system to teach operating system design with. He didn't want to hear about adding drivers or alternate file systems. And for every good reason, you have to master walking before running, let alone flight.
Enter Linus. He develops a new kernel, but instead of publish it in book form, he released it on a newsgroup and asked for suggestions on how to improve it. The rest is history, or at least in the CVS logs.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Yes, this arrangement does not go as far as most of use would like, but it is a step in the right direction. And more importantly, it is a step that would never have happened without Open Source.
Hats off to Stallman for starting the dream and everyone who has supported it.
But when governments start using Windows, they are tied to the business decisions and future of a single company: they can't buy any substitutes and the license doesn't permit them to hire others to modify the code and redistribute the modifications. Even if Microsoft published the complete source code on the Internet, customers would still be completely at the mercy of Microsoft's business decisions because of the license. Incidentally, it's not just Microsoft: Sun is trying to navigate itself into the same position with Java, because, ultimately, all usable Java2 implementations have large chunks of code licensed from them.
Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the only systems governments should rely on are systems with open, non-proprietary standards. They don't have to be open source if there are multiple, reasonably interchangeable implementations. If they are open source, even better. Becoming dependent on a single vendor for anything is bad enough for a business, but for a government, it is really dangerous.
Unless they show them everything then it's completely pointless. Sure the data is properly encrypted by the function but the data and the key has to get to the function first.
And even with the code they can't be sure that it still isn't backdoored. It's the same as the login/compiler trojan that was in unix for years (somebody karma whore for a link, I can't be bothered).
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
i've said it before and i'll say it again: Microsoft Always Has Something Up Their Sleeves.
and no, it isn't the latest debian distro...
This ignore certain facts about software economics. Successful software companies sell their software at a pricepoint that gives them the most profit. They don't really care how much they charge per license, they just want maximum revenue. It turns out that selling at too low a price not only reduces revenue, at some point it actually reduces the number of sales.
People don't pay for stuff they perceive as "cheap". This applies to jewelry and art, and it applies to software. It has nothing to do with actual value, but percieved value, or prestige.
How does one certify that the binary that is shipped corresponds 1:1 to the code, especially if only parts of the source code are revealed (you can't compile yourself!). Sorry, but even with non-corrupt governments, one could not trust this... Note that the compiler is also a potential source of trojan horses, even if the sources they disclose were the ones they compile.
To Bill Gates: Put Windows under GPL, make it compile with gcc, and we can talk about this again...
If you aren't in a position to build, test and deploy the code you are no better off.
:-)
So, you can look at the code? How exciting! What guarantee do you have that the binary that is later stuffed down your throat is the built from the source you looked at? None.
False tranparency, a.k.a lipstick on a pig.
Uh, because most (probably close to 95%) of Microsoft's income is from exactly 2 programs -- Windows and Office. Microsoft gets about $40 for every copy of windows that comes preinstalled. They would have to be INSANE to give up that revinue stream. What can the open source community offer them that compares to that? Anyone who proposed such a thing would be fired so fast their ass would make skid marks across the M$ parking lot.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
They would release the source and and make free, Win9x and a lot of people would stay with them. The downside would be that people would see how bad it is. They would still have their other versions to make money out of and they could "free" all software as it becomes obsolete.
I am not advocating this idea as it would be bad for Linux but I do think it would be Microsoft's best move. I think that opening up some of the code does nothing except PR. The people at the mill will still see that it is not open and this makes no difference. They will be the ones that have a say (in any sensible company) and so this move will not make any real difference.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
The developers are not to blame, we just did our jobs...
:)
A soldier is not without guilt.
It even seems that you agree, given that you found quitting was the only honorable thing to do. Cool
If I were the head of a country, I would do absolutely everything within my power, for the sake of sovereignty and self-determination, to make sure that all government systems are running open code. For this reason, I think it won't be too long before each government has its own distribution.
The problem is that it's the source Microsoft wants me to see when Microsoft wants me to see it. The advantage of Open Source is that I get to look at whatever I want to look at, whenever I want to look at it, and for whatever lame/stupid/paranoid reason or lack of reason I choose.
Now I don't really know what to look for, so if *I* don't see anything wrong, it doesn't mean all that much. But. There are people who do, and people who are paranoid, and people who will scream their heads off if there is *anything* suspicious, particularly anthing that *should* be there but isn't.
What Microsoft is doing will help. A little. But there are too many ways that what I'm seeing is a *sanitized* version of the source, that I'd still be more than a little bit suspicious.
Seriously, Microsoft has thousands of Brains... And very few of them think that opening the source to Windows 95 would benefit Microsoft. Look what happened to Star Office as a result of opening up the Code. Granted, they did it to the last released version, but still. Does anyone pay for Star Office?
Once a product has been given away as free, you have established precidence that it is WORTHLESS. After all, why pay for something you can get for free. I wish I was shorting Sun stock when they announced that they were Open Sourcing Star Office.
This reminds me of those 'staged' tours that opressive governments put on for the free world press every so often. I remember when Jerry Fawell went on a trip to aparthied era South Africa, took in the govt produced show, came back and said, "Well, all the natives looked happy to me".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Actually, those are the only 2 programs that earn money for Microsoft, all others (XBox, MSN, WinCE, mice, keyboards...) lose money for them
Do you have a (credible) source for that? Sure, Xbox is losing money, but that was the plan all along for the first few years, and MSN is probably losing money too, after all the original business plan didn't account for the Internet but was based on dialup and content, a la AOL or Compuserve.
But what about SQL Server and Visual Studio? Are they really losing money on those too?
Really, there is nothing big here. This is a PR move that is meant to reduce the effect of those who want to see Microsoft source code.
By doing this, they don't appease the people who read Slashdot and know C++. They appease John Doe who only heard about source code from the antitrust trial. By saying that some government organizations can view the code, they can ensure that the opening of source code will not be an issue for some time.
It seems as if Microsoft is getting ready for another major expansion - with the trial dead, PR moves like these, and a bunch of new products in the wings (the video iPod-style media player, etc.), it's almost ready.
Okay, once the Indian government has seen the source code, so that they know the americans aren't using it to spy on them...
How do they know the precompiled binary copy they get on CD is safe?
Rest of the World: we don't care what you think
And that is exactly why you have a large hole where the Twin Towers used to be...
It is interesting that they are going to give governments the ability to plug in their own security/encryption. That is for government deployments only, right? Because if my government starts putting spyware in an OS that I'm for some reason required to use, then using a debugger and disassembler should be allowed under the same premises as the right to bear arms, no?
Also, if I were a non-us government, why should I care that MS will show me 'some peices' of the code? That's akin to only letting the UN inspectors see 'some facilities' that might be used to build nuclear devices.
Openness is like pregnancy. You can't be a little of either.
-guvna g
All in the name of freedom of speech, I suppose?
www.photoplankton.com/denis.html
photoplankton
If a government is going to spend enough money to see that Windows is secure for them, why not just secure a free OS? You get the double hit of developing the software and then paying licence fees. If governments would spend just half of their security money on free software they would save millions in licencing fees, plus cut down the number of wirefraud prosecutions for unsecure businesses.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
The source to a Windows module isn't open until you can edit it, compile it, and produce an object file that could be loaded into a running system, or booted as the running system.
Until then, it's a disservice to OSS to acquiesce and call what Microsoft is doing "opening their source" even if that's what they call it.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Oh, how noble. Give me a break, this guy is obviously a troll.
"From a management perspective"? As a dev who claims he quit over this, he wouldn't have a management perspective.
Legitimate interest in collaberating? In your little group? Did you poll the devs in the entire company, or just yourself? There are more than three, you know.
At best this guy was a contractor who was not asked to return, and suddenly, "It's why I quit."
Care to venture the particular group/division that this allegation involves? Maybe their building number? I'd be happy to check it out for you.
I can't believe this was moded to 5. Wishful thinking, maybe. Then again, it's what people WANT to believe here.